WATCH LIVE: House Judiciary Committee Debates Articles of Impeachment

This is a thread devoted for those watching the House Judiciary Committee Debate the Articles of Impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee is debating amendments to the Articles. Democrats are not expected to offer any amendments, but Republicans are expected to offer a slew. Democrats can not stop the debate, but each member can speak for several minutes about each amendment. This will be a long day.

As always, I ask that you please provide some justification or context for your opinion of the testimony you are watching so that individuals who are reading this thread can either reach their own conclusions or at least have enough information to find that point in the video themselves.

You can watch the Youtube Live Link from Washington Post Here:

 

At this point, the members are well into the debate over the Republican amendment to strike the first article of impeachment: Abuse of Power.

Each member speaks by asking "To Strike the Last Word" which permits them to speak for several minutes.

 

Hekeem Jefferies just once again pulled a Schiff stating that Trump mentioned Joe Biden on the call.

The Democrats are TRYING SO hard to misrepresent the facts, it's now beyond ridiculous.

Talking about how Trump put Ukrainians but stopping military aid, but never provided military aid before Trump was in office. How are they now so concerned with military aid being stopped, when they never offered it to begin with?!?

 

Ms. Escobar trying to say that the republicans are trying hard to hide the facts, yet, all these crimes they are accusing Trump off are not in the articles of impeachment...

Why not add these crimes to the articles?

 

I thoroughly enjoyed Jayapal's discussion just now.

She raised the fact that Trump approved the funding in 2017 and 2018 before suddenly worrying about corruption in 2019 - specifically right after Biden announced his nomination and, I would add, at the same time that Trump's own internal polling showed that he would lose massively to Biden.

She also asked two questions of all Republicans - Forgetting about Trump, 1) Is it ever OK to invite foreign interference in a US election? and 2) Is it ever OK to condition the release of military aid in exchange for an announced investigation?

The first Republican to speak since that point has not answered.

 

...What the actual ****? You still think that Trump did not mention Joe Biden?

 

Mr. Gaetz is now pulling a Trump by claiming that there is zero evidence that Ukrainians knew about the hold on the aid.

We have multiple points of data to support that they knew about the hold on the aid, as early as the date of the July 25th phone call.

 

Fascinating.. Someone might have let Zelensky know. The quid pr...bribery... I mean extortion might have gone a tad smoother.

Anywho... Can impeach this M******F****** already?

 

Reschenthaler wants to argue about the inability of Democrats to prove that Trump did not act "corruptly"...

That's a loser of an argument.

 

Christmas will come soon enough.

 

Too bad the dem clown shows evidence is all hearsay and assumptions. Would never fly in a real court of law.

 

Dunno, it might be getting tight..

Dem Leaders Expect a Group of Swing-State Lawmakers to Defect on Impeachment Vote

 

Yeah, but you watch, they will calculate how many they need to pass it, and then how many want to defect, and likely make sure there are enough to pass while allowing the defectors to defect.

If there aren't enough to pass, watch for a deal to help whomever has to not defect get help and a softer landing should they lose.

 

I still think that actual impeachment is fifty-fifty at this point. It just depends on what Nancy is holding over the heads of those leftist representatives up for re-election in the states that are known to be ANGRY about this farce of an Impeachment attempt. That or what she offered them via her corrupt business contacts so that they KNOW when they fail to get re-elected their financials will be assured for years and years to come. In other words . . . the carrot or the stick.

 

New lake front cabin I suspect!

 

They can afford to lose 17 votes given that Amash, the Independent, supports impeachment. And I still hold onto the belief that there will be a few Republicans in the House who will join the vote in impeachment.

 

Hmmm...the Republican argument seems to be that impeachment depends upon a "criminal act." It doesn't. Virtually all Constitutional scholars agree that impeachment is a political process, not a criminal justice process. IF the President is removed from office, via impeachment and conviction, it would require a separate criminal prosecution to determine the violation of statute law.

 

No doubt, the moment the clown show is over is a great present for America. Have you folks not been paying attention? The American people don't want this, and that's from liberal pollsters...

 

Impeachment is a political act, used to address a criminal behavior.

if there’s no crime, there’s no impeachment.

 

Are you suggesting a quid pro quo with a personally enriching happy ending for a Congress critter's vote in the House?

 

Why do you think that? This is a separation of powers argument, over the question of whether or not a President may withhold Congressional appropriations without notice or cause.

 

LOL, a high crime would be bribery. What happened to that?

 

Here is a really solid write up on the Republican Strategy.

Kurt Bardella House Republicans' Trump impeachment strategy is simple: Distract, deceive and yell
GOP lawmakers have treated the hearings like Fox New segments, delivering loud, rambling monologues in a deliberate attempt to wear down participants and viewers.

 

I don't know. Are you recommending it be added? Bribery is separate from a "high crime and misdemeanor," which is the reason they are referred to separately in the Constitution. Bribery could be a high crime and misdemeanor as well as treason, also referred to separately, but not necessarily. The phrase "high crime and misdemeanor" was added to mean a serious "political crime" against the people, in the vein of "serious maladministration." See the discussion in "Madison's Notes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787."

 

The House Judiciary is now voting on the Amendment to Remove Article 1. Roll Call is ongoing...